2020 (5) TMI 466 - HC - GST

Court dismisses petitions challenging demand notices for assessment years; petitioner's concerns unfounded; no costs awarded.

M/s. Indira Projects & Development Pvt. Ltd., Versus The State Tax Officer Survey Cell II, Intelligence II Chennai

The Court disposed of the writ petitions challenging demand notices for assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020, noting the notification ... Recovery proceedings - Validity of assessment order - present writ petitions filed challenging the impugned demand issued on 10.03.2020 and 13.03.2020, while the writ petitions filed by the very same petitioner challenging the assessment orders, are yet to be heard by this Court - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that these writ petitions are filed only against the consequential demand notices and considering the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondent will indulge in recovering the dues as per the demand notices immediately, this Court is of the view that the very apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded in view of the statement made by the learned Government Advocate by placing reliance on the above Notification No.35 of 2020 dated 03.04.2020. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging demand notices issued for assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020. Interpretation of Notification No.35 of 2020 dated 03.04.2020 regarding recovery proceedings.Analysis:The writ petitions were filed to challenge demand notices issued by the respondent for assessment years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020. The petitioner had already filed writ petitions challenging the assessment orders, but due to the lockdown situation, those petitions were yet to be numbered and heard by the Court. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petitions to contest the demand notices issued on 10.03.2020 and 13.03.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the present writ petitions were necessitated by the delay in hearing the earlier petitions challenging the assessment orders.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent referred to Notification No.35 of 2020 dated 03.04.2020 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The notification directed not to initiate any recovery proceedings until 29.06.2020. The Government Advocate contended that the present writ petitions were misconceived in light of the notification, and no recovery proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner until the specified date.In response to the Government Advocate's submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court to record the statement made by the Government Advocate and dispose of the writ petitions accordingly. The Court, after considering the circumstances, noted that the writ petitions were solely against the consequential demand notices and acknowledged the petitioner's apprehension regarding immediate recovery by the respondent. However, the Court found the apprehension to be unfounded based on the statement made by the Government Advocate regarding the notification. The Court, therefore, disposed of the writ petitions without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims made by the parties regarding the demand notices or assessment orders. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as a result of the judgment.